HMO FS Inspections.

[Firewolf]

The RRO doesn't allow  Fire Officers to enter domestic dwellings. However it could be argued that in a HMO scenario parts of the fire precautions in domestic areas (such as AFD) are important to the means of escape and can therefore be enforced by the Fire Authority.

This is something that will need to be tested in court.

In respect of HMO inspections our brigade policy is: - The Fire Officer inspects and enforces common areas, whilst the EHO or Housing Standards officer enforces fire precautions in the domestic parts - the two agencies work together to ensure a common goal is reached.

The Fire Authority is used if required to issue prohibition notice if things are really that bad.

I have to agree that tower blocks should have BS5839 Part 1 L2 systems in common areas, and Part 6 systems in the flats. Most of the flats being upgraded in the West Mids seem to have been fitted out this way,someone told me Building Control insisted upon it when the upgrades were being done (dont know how true that is)

There aren't many flats out there with alarms in common areas however! And the FA could enforce it if they wanted. Luckily most of the tower blocks in our area are now in private housing association hands - therefore not much council stock left as such! This has meant we've not yet had any Authority prosecuting Authority type scenarios yet!!

[Pip]

I agree that the FSO appears to not allow entry into a single domestic household, but this was something that was allowed under the old FP act,I am wondering why that facility has been removed.Anyway my legal dept are seeking advice on that, and also I have asked them how we can ensure the compliance of a common part(and i am not talking HMO's here) when one part comprises of a privately owned single domestic dwelling, the other a premises that does come the FSO.We used to be able to check that domestic dwelling under the old section 19.

[Firewolf]

Anyway my legal dept are seeking advice on that, and also I have asked them how we can ensure the compliance of a common part(and i am not talking HMO's here) when one part comprises of a privately owned single domestic dwelling, the other a premises that does come the FSO.We used to be able to check that domestic dwelling under the old section 19.

Hi Pip

I'd be grateful to hear of the outcome from your legal eagles think of this (if you can) - I think you've brought up a very intresting point and Ive found myself pondering those questions too.

Be helpful to find out what your chaps and chapettes think!

[PhilB]

It is quite clear what powers are available. Originally it was a bit cloudy because although the order never applied to domestic premises, article 27 said that there was power to enter "any premises". So could the term "any premises" include domestic premises?

The answer came a few months later when article 31 was amended by adding 32.10

" In this article, "premises" includes domestic premises other than premises consisting of or comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling and article 27 (powers of inspectors) shall be construed accordingly."

So ONLY for article 31 purposes (prohibition/restriction) is the power available.

Now some will argue that you cannot determine that such conditions exist without entering ... I agree but that does not mean you can go barging into domestic premises willy nilly using that excuse.

I totally agree that the power to enter such premises should have been retained with 24 hrs notice required.

[Big A]

Isn't the answer (as far as checking AFD is concerned) that if, for example, you have determined that an L1 system is required (perhaps via an enforcement notice), it is up to the responsible person to demonstrate that they have complied? It is not up to us to sniff out every detector and bell.

[Pip]

Anyway my legal dept are seeking advice on that, and also I have asked them how we can ensure the compliance of a common part(and i am not talking HMO's here) when one part comprises of a privately owned single domestic dwelling, the other a premises that does come the FSO.We used to be able to check that domestic dwelling under the old section 19.

Hi Pip

I'd be grateful to hear of the outcome from your legal eagles think of this (if you can) - I think you've brought up a very intresting point and Ive found myself pondering those questions too.

Be helpful to find out what your chaps and chapettes think!

Of course I will post the outcome,but it is via 'Bar Direct' so will take a few weeks.I take the point that it is not up to us to'sniff' everything out, but that should not mean that we can't look when we need to.Another possible way in to a domestic premises might be through one of the Housing Acts(ie similar/same as for entry in to HMO's.I can't remember off hand which one it is, but an interesting presentation by a housing officer last year suggested that they could enter any domestic house, and impose conditions if they thought it was unsafe, including any fire safety related issues.So it may be that, in the circumstances I gave we have to get a local Housing officer to enforce as we do in a HMO.

[Pip]

a while coming but I will keep the advice given grief:
1)As we all noted, with the exception of prohibition notices-no power of entry under FSO.
2)access may be possible with managing Agent/landlord/RP under their right of entry under lease, tenancy or other agreement.The scrutiny committee considered the courts would be likely to find a RP had statutory rights of access for the purpose of articles 17 (maintenance) and 38 (maintenance of measures to protect firefighters)
3)The owner/occupier, if they do not co operate,could be prosecuted under Article 32(10)
so the 'right' of entry, is now thru other means i.e. the landlord/managing agent/housing officer.Any detector in a non shared area that is part of a larger system has to be maintained.A lot of landlords/housing Assoc/councils now looking at 'front doors' to see if they are suitable.Apparently a case to go before high court to determine who pays for upgrading, or replacement of such doors-tennent/landlord or RP etc.

[jayjay]

see Q&A RRO & housing re FRS protocol

[Pip]

Thanks for that, I knew some work was underway but had not seen a document.did I read/hear somewhere that LHA's might be reluctant to prohibit sleeping accommodation as they have then a duty to rehouse at their expense?but if they get the Fire Authority to prohibit there is no duty to rehouse?

[val]

Pip

as I understand it, 'the duty to re-house' or lack of it is independent of which Authority takes the action. Most LHA would re-house vulnerable people on moral grounds but this definition is fairly limited.

[jokar]

The best result would be to build all or alter all HMO's of whatever definition so that they comply with ADB Part 1 or BS5588 part with a 60 minute structure and let the occupants stay in their homes.  Of course most building materials now will give 60 minutes on soundproofing alone so nothing to difficult.